IFR Ratings – 65% in the USA – 16% in Oz – and Even Less with ADSB Mandate
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So for the limited number of private operators, flying for recreation or leisure with no compelling rationales for pushing daylight or weather boundaries, 75% of their proposed flying can be done in completely benign weather.... why would they want to operate under the IFR?
If I was to buy another aeroplane for private use (gods forbid) it would be VFR, and no less safe for it. I would also put a Garmin ADSB-GPS in it 'cause I like gadgets and if I can afford an aeroplane just for ****s & giggles, I can afford a few bucks worth of toys.
And the 'few bucks' you talk about, at current ADSB pricing can represent up to a third of the cost of current IFR private aircraft, once installation costs are taken in to account, and will more than double the cost of your '****s and giggles' aircraft. Can't really see you going there.
Many current IFR maintained machines in AUS will become VFR only because of the current early mandate. How can this possibly be anything other than a lowering of safety standards?
As has been pointed out in this and other threads, the cost of installing ADSB equipment is falling exponentially as we get closer to the USA 2020.
But then again Jammie, you, and CASA seem to believe that we really, really, really NEED to be first in the race. COST, COST?? Not our problem!
That's why Dick's argument is valid!
Many current IFR maintained machines in AUS will become VFR only because of the current early mandate. How can this possibly be anything other than a lowering of safety standards?
Give them some credit for being professional enough flyers to not endanger themselves, passengers and aircraft by getting into unsafe situations.
Airservices Australia has pushed CASA into introducing a mandate that all small planes that fly in cloud must be fitted with an expensive electronic box called ADSB
To Mr and Mrs Joe Public, that probably sounds like a good thing i.e. in their thinking small planes shouldn't fly in clouds and be a hazard to themselves and bigger planes unless they have the proper equipment.
Let's not make decisions on the basis of objective risks and cost/benefit. Let's do it on the basis of what Mr and Mrs Joe Public feel (especially when we can justify just about anything by scaring the bejesus out of them).
Funny thing is that apparently Mr and Mrs Joe Public don't get asked about how they feel about the exemptions. Or perhaps Mr and Mrs Joe Public are sufficiently sophisticated to understand that - somehow - it's dangerous for airliners and other aircraft to fly around in cloud without ADS-B, but not dangerous for airliners to fly around in cloud with ADS-B unserviceable for a few days.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 11th Feb 2016 at 01:22.
As has been pointed out in this and other threads, the cost of installing ADSB equipment is falling exponentially as we get closer to the USA 2020.
The FAA in the US allows ADS-B installations to be done under "Field Approval". CASA however still require the full deal including engineering orders for the installation.
Thread Starter
We have 12 months to get this mandate removed. It's possible as no measurable safety problem is being addressed.
Come on. How about a bit of guts from the GA industry on this!
Come on. How about a bit of guts from the GA industry on this!
We have 12 months to get this mandate removed.
Come on. How about a bit of guts from the GA industry on this!
Dick
I'd be happy to be involved but how? The industry needs a strong leader.
On a separate note I have probably one of the few pressurised aircraft that doesn't have radar. Under the new proposed rules ALL pressurised aircraft be piston or turbine have to have Radar.
So I have to install a radar unit, yet when I was in the USA I flew a great Aero Commander 685 that had a Garmin530wAAS unit with a satelite radar attached. Cheap more reliable and compatible with the rest of the aircraft equipment at a fraction of the weight and more reliable.
Can I get it here, don't be silly we are flying aircraft and systems based on the 1960's
I'd be happy to be involved but how? The industry needs a strong leader.
On a separate note I have probably one of the few pressurised aircraft that doesn't have radar. Under the new proposed rules ALL pressurised aircraft be piston or turbine have to have Radar.
So I have to install a radar unit, yet when I was in the USA I flew a great Aero Commander 685 that had a Garmin530wAAS unit with a satelite radar attached. Cheap more reliable and compatible with the rest of the aircraft equipment at a fraction of the weight and more reliable.
Can I get it here, don't be silly we are flying aircraft and systems based on the 1960's
Dick
From what I can see, the FAA part 135 only talks about large passenger transport aircraft
However under a different section they talk about IFR in known thunderstorm conditions, which is like Australia. But it talks about detection system ie Radar OR storm scopes.
From what I can see, the FAA part 135 only talks about large passenger transport aircraft
However under a different section they talk about IFR in known thunderstorm conditions, which is like Australia. But it talks about detection system ie Radar OR storm scopes.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA however still require the full deal including engineering orders for the installation.
FAA STCs are issued by an acceptable foreign authority so should suffice in that case, then it's just labour to run the GPS data wire to the rack and set up the new unit.
I'm sure we'll get a LAME correcting this, but in my experience it seems to vary depending on LAME, type of aircraft, the last time an electrical load analysis was done and the last time a weight & balance was done.
But yes, a simple ADS-B installation (in Australia) may require one or more engineering orders, an electrical load analysis and potentially even a re-weigh.
But yes, a simple ADS-B installation (in Australia) may require one or more engineering orders, an electrical load analysis and potentially even a re-weigh.
Folks,
What is being missed, in all this, is that neither FAA nor EASA are mandating ADS-B OUT for the greater percentage of IFR operation in light aircraft --- "light aircraft" being aircraft that don't exceed 250kt IAS, or operate above 10,000 AMSL.
We had the spectacle of Skidmore, at Senate Estimates this week, extolling the "safety" virtues of ever widening surveillance of an ever widening range of aircraft.
In almost the same breath, he was unable to answer a simple question from WA Senator Glen Sterle, who wanted an explanation of why, if ADS-B was so essential for safety, why some VARA aircraft had been given long term exemptions for carrying ADS-B, and was this a commercial decision overriding a safety matter.
Of course, in risk management terms, the exemptions are entirely reasonable, but Skidmore could not explain to the good Senator (and apparently his EM Airports and Airways couldn't either) that those aircraft will operate with greater separation without ADS-B, so there is no reduction in separation assurance.
It was certainly a bravura performance by CASA.
It is reported, second hand, that Skidmore has even remarked that "all aircraft should have ADS-B". Given his performance this week, (and his approach to the CVD matter) I can believe it. No safety case, not the slightest suggestion of cost/benefit justification, just ill-informed opinion that would not wash in an aeroclub discussion on a Friday evening.
Questions from the Senators about whether ADS-B had been subject of a safety case, or just imposed on the aviation community, made some people on the CASA "bench" very uncomfortable, of course it wasn't answered --- we all know that there never was a credible one, and one of the intended "side effects" of the ADS-B mandate was the effective mandating of C-145/146 GPS upgrades by stealth.
It is the upgrade to C-145/147 (not ADS-B) that has enabled ASA to pull out navaids, saving a fortune for ASA, at the cost of transferring huge costs onto the aircraft owning/operating community, across the board.
None of the major airlines have yet been able to show any return, let alone a commercial return on their not inconsiderable investment in ADS-B.
Tootle pip!!
What is being missed, in all this, is that neither FAA nor EASA are mandating ADS-B OUT for the greater percentage of IFR operation in light aircraft --- "light aircraft" being aircraft that don't exceed 250kt IAS, or operate above 10,000 AMSL.
We had the spectacle of Skidmore, at Senate Estimates this week, extolling the "safety" virtues of ever widening surveillance of an ever widening range of aircraft.
In almost the same breath, he was unable to answer a simple question from WA Senator Glen Sterle, who wanted an explanation of why, if ADS-B was so essential for safety, why some VARA aircraft had been given long term exemptions for carrying ADS-B, and was this a commercial decision overriding a safety matter.
Of course, in risk management terms, the exemptions are entirely reasonable, but Skidmore could not explain to the good Senator (and apparently his EM Airports and Airways couldn't either) that those aircraft will operate with greater separation without ADS-B, so there is no reduction in separation assurance.
It was certainly a bravura performance by CASA.
It is reported, second hand, that Skidmore has even remarked that "all aircraft should have ADS-B". Given his performance this week, (and his approach to the CVD matter) I can believe it. No safety case, not the slightest suggestion of cost/benefit justification, just ill-informed opinion that would not wash in an aeroclub discussion on a Friday evening.
Questions from the Senators about whether ADS-B had been subject of a safety case, or just imposed on the aviation community, made some people on the CASA "bench" very uncomfortable, of course it wasn't answered --- we all know that there never was a credible one, and one of the intended "side effects" of the ADS-B mandate was the effective mandating of C-145/146 GPS upgrades by stealth.
It is the upgrade to C-145/147 (not ADS-B) that has enabled ASA to pull out navaids, saving a fortune for ASA, at the cost of transferring huge costs onto the aircraft owning/operating community, across the board.
None of the major airlines have yet been able to show any return, let alone a commercial return on their not inconsiderable investment in ADS-B.
Tootle pip!!
LeadShed
Saving a fortune for ASA?? I suspect that the big end of town said that they don't need, don't want and won't pay for the NDBs around the country. Just goes to show that the user pays model for aviation infrastructure is flawed.
It is the upgrade to C-145/147 (not ADS-B) that has enabled ASA to pull out navaids, saving a fortune for ASA, at the cost of transferring huge costs onto the aircraft owning/operating community, across the board.
Saving a fortune for ASA?? I suspect that the big end of town said that they don't need, don't want and won't pay for the NDBs around the country
Sunny, believe me (I was part of many early discussions) the "ADS-B" mandate's consequential requirement for everybody to update to C-145/146 based GPS was well understood by ASA to be the real payoff for mandating ADS-B.
Airlines took exactly that position (just as they made it very clear, from the word go, that no saving to airlines from navaid reduction would go to a subsidy, in any any shape or form, for GA equipment) , but, I repeat, airlines have not been able to show a return, let alone a commercial return on the investment. The airlines were conned, just as was everybody else who was involved.
The cost to airlines has been considerable, many times that suggested by CASA and ASA in the original propaganda. In fact, the cost to modify, say, a -8/100-200 has been about the FAA estimate, around US$300,000+, just a tad more than the AUD$25,000 suggested by CASA for a Regional type.
Returns on investment would include any reductions in ASA charges to airlines, as a result of "savings". What reductions??
Tootle pip!!
Reductions can seen from two sides, an actual reduction in charges or a smaller increase in charges.
In the case of aviation, the government should providing appropriate infrastructure. Funding models that include "user pays (only for the services they use) and ASA paying the government a dividend are IMHO flawed.
Sorry for the thread drift.
In the case of aviation, the government should providing appropriate infrastructure. Funding models that include "user pays (only for the services they use) and ASA paying the government a dividend are IMHO flawed.
Sorry for the thread drift.
Saving a fortune for ASA?? I suspect that the big end of town said that they don't need, don't want and won't pay for the NDBs around the country. Just goes to show that the user pays model for aviation
God help you if you want to do VOR or ADF training or currency in the Melbourne basin after the shutdown.
GPS is not infallible. It's subject to RAIM outages, jamming and equipment failure ( notably antennas). It would be nice to have some redundancy of AIDS for GA - not just the airlines.